ACTA UNIVERSITATIS AGRICULTURAE ET SILVICULTURAE MENDELIANAE BRUNENSIS

Volume LIX 35 Number 4, 2011

AN ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACH TO VALUE ANALYSIS OF REGIONS,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND CLUSTERS

M. Sabolovič

Received: March 8, 2011

Abstract

SABOLOVIČ, M.: An alternative methodological approach to value analysis of regions, municipal corporations and
clusters. Acta univ. agric. et silvic. Mendel. Brun., 2011, LIX, No. 4, pp. 295–300

The paper deals with theoretical conception of value analysis of regions, municipal corporations
and clusters. The subject of this paper is heterodox approach to sensitivity analysis of finite set of
variables based on non-additive measure. For dynamic analysis of trajectory of general value are
sufficient robust models based on maximum entropy principle. Findings concern explanation of
proper fuzzy integral – Choquet integral. The fuzzy measure is represented by theory of capacities
(Choquet, 1953) on powerset. In fine, the conception of the New integral for capacities (Lehler,
2005) is discussed. Value analysis and transmission constitutes remarkable aspect of performance
evaluation of regions, municipal corporations and clusters. In the light of high ratio of so variables,
social behavior, intangible assets and human capital within those types of subjects the fuzzy integral
introduce useful tool for modeling. The New integral aerwards concerns considerable characteristic
of people behavior – risk averse articulated concave function and non-additive operator. Results
comprehended tools enabling observation of synergy, redundancy and inhibition of value variables
as consequence of non-additive measure. In fine, results induced issues for future research.

powerset, fuzzy integral, Choquet integral, New intergral for capacities, non-additive measure

A general theoretical approach to value analysis of value is assigned to thermoeconomics in

of particular crisp set of discrete value variables of
open systems, f. i. regions, municipal corporations
or clusters, stems from fundamental arithmetic
nowadays. The reasons for grouping are implicitly
anticipating but seldom realized by variables. The
synergic effects result from interpenetration of
particular elements of the system. The aim of the
paper is theoretical explanation of non-additive
measure based on theory of capacities. The object
of this paper is to presents the results of the study
in progress on math modeling of interdisciplinary
relationship concerning intangibles and network
effects of value variables within value analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Entropy Theory of Value
…the laws of physics tell us that we cannot create
something from nothing (Chen, 2005). Specific premise
general. Thermoeconomics is ranked to heterodox
school economics based on laws of nature Energy
Economics. An explanation of rudimental reasons
conveys classical and statistical thermodynamics.
The corner stone for rationale of this domain is
the Second law of thermodynamics and entropy
(Clausius, 1865). The paradigm’s characteristics
are immanent attributes of economics subject’s
behavior. Entropy principle enlarged Shannon
into mathematical formulation of information
entropy (Shannon, 1948; Weaver, Shannon,
1963). The analytic formula for entropy law of
economics processes was introduced by Roegen
in 1966. The entropy in economics was clarified
in phenomenological meaning. (Roegen, 1986)
Mathematical formulation of economic value
as a function of scarcity articulated Applebaum.
(Applebaum, 1996) Consequently, an Entropy
Theory of Value derived Chen (Chen, 2005). The

295
296
value analysis of regions, municipal corporations
and clusters extremely limits data availability. For
dynamic analysis of trajectory of general value
are sufficient robust models based on maximum
entropy principle (Applebaum, 1996; Kovanic,
Humber, 2009).
Methods
For value analysis are classified holistic and
atomistic approach, see Fig. 1. On the first stage of
survey a historical literature review was carried out.
The atomistic approach was selected for capture
of mutual effect within the internal system. On the
second stage the theoretical analysis of properties of
fuzzy integral and analytic solution was explored.
1: Value Analysis Approaches
On the third stage the Choquet and the New
integral were compared. In fine, the consequences
for value analysis and on-coming research were
induced.
Research Question Formulation
Value analysis is the process determined by the
ability of extraction of information from the pure
data. (Applebaum, 1996; Kovanic, Humber, 2009)
Variations in general value of specific system,
economic subject particularly, can be measured by
the changes in entropy in stated paradigm. Research
question formulation appears from Zadeh’s
principle of incompatibility. As the complexity of
a system increase, human ability to make precise and relevant
(meaningful) statements about its behavior diminishes until
a threshold is reached beyond which the precision and the
relevance become mutually exclusive characteristics. It is then
that the fuzzy statements are the only bearers of meaning
(Zadeh, 1973). Research question: Does fuzzy
integral enables to measure mutual interaction
of system’s elements within the scope of value
analysis with interception of general value
changes?
M. Sabolovič
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Value discrepancies
Fig. 1 shows two fundamental approaches to
value analysis – atomistic and holistic approach.
The holistic approach is more obvious. The value of
mutual interactions of elements of system is derived
top down. The value is an integral part of the whole.
The higher value than intrinsic can be assign to
some elements. This property of holistic approach
obviously results to over or undervaluation.
Atomistic approach methodology is bottom up.
The value of particular elements is assessed more
properly by this procedure. In precise application
the results of both approaches should be equal.
The relevance of particular values results to
further value changes (Casta, Bry, 1998):
• Synergy – mutual interactions results to higher
value of joint elements than the value elements
per partes.
• Redundancy – mutual interactions results to
recognition of otioseness in value creation.
• Inhibition – mutual interactions results to
negation of values.
Standard analytical tools based on elementary
arithmetic marginalize the property mentioned
above. The motivation for the research was
the dra and explanation of fuzzy integral in
financial valuation (Casta, Bry, 1998; Casta, Lesage,
2001; Casta, Bry, 2003, Casta et al., 2005). Our
contribution is an extension the approach of Casta
et al. from internal business environment to network
economics. The particular agents represent the
variables describing the elements of system (region,
municipal corporation, and cluster). For numerical
solutions has to be selected appropriate variables, f.
i. UTRIN methodology (UTRIN, 2006).
Conventional approach to value analysis use
additive computation, see [1] (Casta, Bry; 2003). The
results of additive approach failure in the case of
higher ratio of quantitative property of the elements
of the system.
I
H (xii=1
I
) = ∑ h(xi), [1]
i=1
H ... General value of the whole
h .... Value of particular variable of the system
xi .... Elements of the system.
Casta, Bry (2003) emphasize the dependency
of general value on the sequence of variables –
commutative law infringement. Group order is the
resource of addition changes of general output value
[2].
I
H (xii=1
I
) > ∑ h(xi). [2]
i=1
Aggregate operators represent considerable
factors which markedly influence results. Casta and
Bry (Catsa, Bry; 2003) mention Average Operators,
Weighted-Average Operators, Symmetrical Sums,
 An alternative methodological approach to value analysis of regions, municipal corporations and clusters
t – norms, t – conforms, Mean Operators, Ordered
Weighted Averaging. The math property of the
model stated Grabish (Grabish, 1995): continuity,
the highest and the best increase, commutativity,
asociativity and complementarity.
According to atomistic approach, see Fig. 1, the
model requirements can be articulated by present
literature review (Hand, Lev, 2004; Ohlson, 1995;
Casta et al., 1998, 2003, 2005; Cummis, Derrig, 1997;
Kosko, 1993; Sugeno, 1977; Zadeh, 1965; Sabolovic,
2009; Damodaran, 2006). Standard additive
operators do not enable phenomena of mutual value
interaction in ordered set – synergy, redundancy and
inhibition. For those phenomena realizing is the
most appropriate tool fuzzy measure. Mathematical
statement is fuzzy integral particularly Sugeno,
Choquet and New integral. The property of allows
non-additive measure. Graphical expression of
mutual interaction shows Fig. 2 – Fuzzy Powerset.
Mutual relations are expressed by membership
function.
2: Fuzzy powerset
Fuzzy integral
The virtues of fuzzy integral are math formulation
of non-additive measure. (Casta, Bry; 2003) Fuzzy
integral integrates real function in relation to fuzzy
measure (Grabisch et al., 1995; Dennberg, 1994). For
finite nonempty set X with n elements exists variable
μ which is an element of P(X). Fuzzy variable gain
value in the interval (0;1) (Casta, Bry; 2003).
(1) μ = 0
(2) μ() = 1
(3) A  B, μ(A) ≤ μ(B).
The approach is based on non-additive axiom.
With respect to model requirements two discrete
sets swell property [6], [7] and [8].
(1) μ(E  F) = μ(E) + μ(F)
297
(2) μ(E  F) ≥ μ(E) + μ(F) [7]
(3) μ(E  F) ≤ μ(E) + μ(F). [8]
Equation [6] expresses possible additive
attributes, equation [7] expresses over-additive
synergy), equation [8] express redundancy. The
powerset, see Fig. 2, with respect to all fuzzy subset
exact 2n coefficients (Casta, Bry; 2003).
Fuzzy system definition implies selection of
proper integral with respect to measure (Sugeno,
1977; Choquet, 1953). Sugeno integral of measurable
function [9] with respect to fuzzy variable μ can be
defined by the conditional probability [10].
f: X  [0;1] [9]
S(f) = max(min(; μ(x|f(x) > ))). [10]
  [0;1]
Sugeno integral concerns function maximum
and minimum. In the point of view of the whole
system (f. i. region, municipal corporation, cluster)
the subset representing the particular entities
of real economics the fuzzy integral has cover
supremum and infimum. Sugeno integral seems
to be unacceptable for modeling of mutual value
relations (Casta, Bry; 2003). Casta and Bry (2003)
encourage the Choquet integral. Choquet integral of
measurable function with respect to fuzzy measure
μ, see [11].
C(f) =  μ(x|f(x) > ydy. [11]
Whether is defined finite set X = {x1, x2, … xn}
which take the function value 0 ≤ f(x1) ≤ … ≤ f(xn) ≤ 1,
where Ai ={xi, …, xn} Choquet integral is expressed
[12] (Casta, Bry; 2003).
n
C(f) = ∑ [f(xi) − f(xi−1)]μ(Ai). [12]
i=1
Whether 1 (A = B) is an indicator function which
take the function value 1 if A = B, differently 0, is
expressed [13], [14] (Casta, Bry; 2003).
   
C(f) =   ∑ μ(A) × 1(A = x|f(x) > y)  dy. [13]
  A=P(X) 
   
C(f) = ∑ μ(A) ×  ∑ × 1(A = x|f(x) > y) dy. [14]
A=P(X) A=P(X) 
[3]
Substitution the value of integral in equation [14]
by function A(f) concludes to equation [15] (Casta,
[4]
Bry; 2003).
n
[5] C(f) = ∑ μ(A) × gA(f). [15]
A  P(X)
Fuzzy measure assessment according to Casta et
al. (1998, 2001, 2003, 2005) imply the task concluded
in several studies (f. i. Grabish et al., 1995). Suppose
[6] I systems characterized by general value v and set
298 M. Sabolovič
of X from J real variables xj (value of particular
elements of system). Let fi assigns every variable xj
the general value of the system [16].
i: fi: xj  xij. [16]
Fuzzy measure μ is determined to comply with
equation [17].
i: C(fi) = vi. [17]
Let A is subset and ga(fi) is generator relative to A,
defined by equation [18].
i  gA(fi) = 1(A = x|fi(x) > y) × dy. [18]
Derived model is expresses equation [19]. In
equation ui expresses residuum which can be
modeled by standard approaches (random variable,
least square method etc.).
i  vi = ∑ μ(A) × gA(fi) + ui. [19]
A  P(X)
Equation [20] shows model with 2j parameters and
fuzzy measure μ(A) for all subset A of variable xj.
Dependent variable express the general value v and
explanatory variables are generators corresponding
to subset X. Required parameters can be estimated
by standard multiple regression (Casta, Bry; 1998,
2003):
y0 = 0, y1 = dy, …, yn = n × dy. [20]
For every group A of accordant variables xs are
derived generators in equation [21].
n +n the New integral is expressed [26], [27].
gA(fi) = dy × ∑ 1(A = x|xi > yh). [21]
h=0
For interpretation of results Casta and Bry (Casta,
Bry; 1998, 2003) uses the principle [22].
μ(A  B) ≥ μ(A) + μ(B)  synergy btw A and B
[22]
μ(A  B) ≤ μ(A) + μ(B)  inhibition btw A and B.
The model proposed is linear with respect to
generator but non-linear with respect to variables
xj. The model is sufficient for small number of
variables xj (Casta, Bry; 1998). But the results imply
other question and its interpretation, f. i. [23]
(Damodaran, 2006).
μ(A  B) − (μ(A) + μ(B)). [23]
For a large number of variables xj Casta and Bry
(Casta, Bry; 1998, 2003) recommend Principal
Components Analysis.
New integral for capacities
For alternative theoretical concept of fuzzy
integral Lehrer (Lehrer, 2005) proposed so called
the New integral with respect to capacities which
differentiate from the Choquet integral. The
newness of the integral consists in concavity. The
integral of the sum of two functions is less than
or equal to the sum of particular integrals. The
concavity of the function expresses an aversion to
uncertainty.
In addition, Lehrer (Lehrer, 2005) postulated three
axioms:
1. Whether the capacity is additive then the integral
coincides with the regular one.
2. The axiom of monotonicity with respect to
capacities.
3. The integral of function X does not depend on
the values that the capacity takes on the subset
where X disappears.
Lehrer (Lehrer, 2005) defined capacity as
a function v which assigns non-negative real number
to every subset of finite set N under the conditions
v{ }= 0, v is defined over N = n, v is a capacity defined
over it. P is additive if for any two disjoit subset hold
generally equation [24].
S, T  N, P(S) + P(T) = P(S  T). [24]
The concavification cav of v is defined as the
minimum of all concave and homogenous function
f: +n   such that f(IR) ≥  v() for every   N and
every X  +n, see function [25] (Lehrer, 2005).
cav
cav v = (X) =  Xdv. [25]
Lehler (Lehrer, 2005) explain the minimum of
a concave and homogenous function over +n as
a function of X. Suppose v and w are two capacities
then v ≥ w if (S) ≥ w(S) for every S  N. For every X 
cav
    
  Xdv = max  ∑Rv(R); ∑RIR = X, R ≥ 0 [26]
  RN  RN 
cav cav
  Xdv = minP is… additive and P≥v  XdP. [27]
The proof propounded Azrieli and Lehler (2005).
The property of the New integral, comparison
with Choquet integral and extension of Lebesgue
integral to fuzzy capacity application derived Lehrer
(Lehrer, 2005).
Input variables
Property of fuzzy integral is suitable for value
analysis namely regions, municipal corporations
and clusters. By virtue of data scarcity is used
decomposition of synthetic index for analytical
purposes. Selection of arbitrary variables is
extremely subjective and depends on purpose of
analysis. For regions Kutscherauer (Kutscherauer,
2010) proposes 14 integrated indicators: standards
of living, health state, social facilities, housing,
social pathology, economic potential, economic
structure, unemployment, development potential,
settlement, environment, transport infrastructure,
technical infrastructure, quality of life. Živělová,
Jánský (Živělová, Jánský, 2007) dra as fundamental
 An alternative methodological approach to value analysis of regions, municipal corporations and clusters 299

variables: economic structure, GDP per capita, gross
value added, gross fixed capital, and employment.
For municipal corporations are used economic
quality classes. Halášek et al. (Halášek et al.,
2005) covers property class (property structure,
profitability of property), finance class(incomes,
expenditures, debt service) and development class
(municipality performance indicators). Marešová
(Marešová, 2010) proposes as the fundamental
variables for cluster analysis: business performance
of economic subjects, efficiency indexes of activities
located in cluster, cluster performance indicators,
effectiveness of management indicators, cluster
policy indicators.
CONCLUSIONS
Value analysis using conventional tools do not
enable realize effect in value caused mutual
interactions of particular variables. Pursuant to
findings of literature review pertinent approach
concern powerset. Extensions of powerset within
fuzzy logic possess accordant framework. The
main three patterns can be described stem from
the mutual interactions – synergy, redundancy
and inhibition. For analysis were deigned fuzzy
integrals with property proper for non-additive
measure. The value analysis of regions, municipal
corporations and clusters extremely limits data
availability. For dynamic analysis of trajectory of
general value are sufficient robust models based
on maximum entropy principle. Primer model
was based on Choquet integral. The extension
for more accurately articulation was formulated
using Lebesque integral. For comparison with up
to date mathematical research were referred the
New integral. With regard to results of theoretical
analysis the statement of the research question was
formulated. The stated research question was: Does
fuzzy integral enables to measure mutual interaction
of system’s elements within the scope of value
analysis with interception of general value changes?
Findings of observation imply positive statement of
model propriety. Value analysis and transmission
constitutes remarkable aspect of performance
evaluation of regions, municipal corporations and
clusters. In the light of high ratio of so variables,
social behavior, intangible assets and human capital
within those types of subjects the fuzzy integral
introduce useful tool for modeling. The new integral
aerwards concerns considerable characteristic of
people behavior – risk averse articulated concave
function and non-additive operator. In fine, results
induced issues for future research. The domain of
the ongoing research will be empirical verification
of models. The population covers region NUTS
– 0 Czech Republic. Preliminary research ended
in confirmative approach in research hypothesis
statement. Findings of preliminary research
indicates growing ratio of intangibles in value
analysis.

SUMMARY
The aim of the paper is theoretical explanation of non-additive measure based on theory of capacities.
The subject of this paper is heterodox approach to sensitivity analysis of finite set of variables based
on non additive measure. The paper deals with theoretical conception of value analysis of regions,
municipal corporations and clusters. The fuzzy measure is represented by theory of capacities
(Choquet, 1953) on powerset. On the first stage of survey a literature review was carried out. The
atomistic approach was selected for capture of mutual effect within the internal system. On the second
stage the theoretical analysis of properties of fuzzy integral and analytic solution was explored. The
value analysis of regions, municipal corporations and clusters extremely limits data availability. For
dynamic analysis of trajectory of general value are sufficient robust models based on maximum
entropy principle. Findings concern explanation of proper fuzzy integral – Choquet integral. In fine,
the conception of the New integral for capacities (Lehler, 2005) is discussed. Results comprehended
tools enabling observation of synergy, redundancy and inhibition of value variables as consequence
of non-additive measure. In fine, results induced issues for future research.

Acknowledgements
This paper is supported by the Research program of Czech Ministry of Education number VZ MSM
6215648904/04.

REFERENCES CASTA, J. F. BRY, X., 1998: “Synergy, financial

APPLEBAUM, D., 1996: Probability and Information,
an Integrated Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN-13 978-0-511-41424-4.
AZRIELI, Y., LEHRER, E., 2005: Investment games
or population games. Online cit. [5.10.2010].
Available at: http://www.math.tau.ac.il/»lehrer/
Papers/population-games-10.pdf.
assessment and fuzzy integrals”. In: Proceedings
of IVth Meeting of the International Society for Fuzzy
Management and Economy (SIGEF). Santiago de
Cuba, Vol. II, 17–42.
CASTA, J. F., LESAGE, C., 2001: Accounting and
Controlling in Uncertainty: concepts, techniques
and methodology. In: Handbook of Management under
300 M. Sabolovič
Uncertainty, J. Gil-Aluja (ed.). Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
CASTA, J. F., BRY, X., 2003: Synergy Modeling and
Financial Valuation: The Contribution of Fuzzy
Integrals. Online cit. [5. 5. 2010]. Available at:
http://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.plex?u-
=http%3A%2F%2Fbasepub.dauphine.fr%2Fxmlu
i%2Fbitstream%2F123456789%2F1036%2F2%2F
Casta_cereg200304.PDF;h=repec:ner:dauphi:urn:
hdl:123456789/1036.
CASTA, J. F., BRY, X., RAMOND, O., 2005: Intangi-
bles Mismeasurement, Synergy, and Accounting
Numbers: A Note. Online cit. [5. 5. 2010]. Available
at: http://basepub.dauphine.fr/xmlui/bitstream/
handle/123456789/2196/SSRN-id860824.pdf;jses
sionid=A6570599C064990C344A1ADFE50AC6E
0?sequence=2.
CLAUSIUS, R., 1865: The Mechanical Theory of Heat –
with its Applications to the Steam Engine and to Physical
Properties of Bodies. London: John van Voorst.
CUMMIS, J. D., DERRING, R. A., 1997: Fuzzy
Financial Pricing of Property-Liability Insurance.
Cit. [07-05-2010]. Available at: http://www.soa.
org/library/journals/north-american-actuarial-
journal/1997/october/naaj9710_2.pdf.
DAMODARAN, A., 2006: Damodaran on Valuation, 2.
eddition. Hoboken: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-75121-
2.
DENNEBERG, D., 1994: Non-additive measures and
integral. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
GRABISCH, M., NGUYEN, H. T., WAKKER,
E. A., 1995: Fundamentals of uncertainty calculi with
applications to fuzzy inference. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
HALÁSEK, D. et al., 2005: Analýza ekonomické
připravenosti obcí a jejich možnost řešit své rozvojové
potřeby. Online cit. [28. 5. 2011]. Available at: www.
mmr-vyzkum.cz/infobanka/DownloadFile/3748.
aspx.
HAND, J. R. M., LEV, B., 2004: Intangible Assets: Values,
Measures, and Risks. New Yourk: Oxford University
Press.
CHEN, J., 2005: The Physical Foundation of Economics:
An Analytical Thermodynamic Theory. Singapore:
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. ISBN
981-256-323-7.
CHOQUET, G., 1953: Théorie des capacities. Annales
de l’Institut Fourier, No. 5, 131–295. 1777–5310.
KOSKO, B., 1993: Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of
Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion.
KOVANIC, P., HUMBER, M. B., 2009: The Economics
of Information-Mathematical Gnostics for Data Analysis,
707 pp. Online cit. [10. 11. 2010]. Available at:
http://www.math-gnostics.com/download/MG19.
pdf.
Address
Ing. Mojmír Sabolovič, Ph.D., Ústav regionální a podnikové ekonomiky, Mendelova univerzita v Brně,
Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Česká republika, e-mail: mojmir.sabolovic@mendelu.cz
KUTSCHERAUER, A., 2010: Integrované indikátory
a modelové regiony pro hodnocení regionálních disparit
v České republice. (Lecture) Brno: ESF. Online cit.
[28. 5. 2011]. Available at:
http://is.muni.cz/do/econ/soubory/katedry/
kres/4884317/14318877/Kutscherauer.pdf.
LEHRER, E., 2005: A New Integral for Capacities. Tel
Aviv University Mathematical Sciences Working Paper.
Online cit. [3. 9. 2010]. Available at: http://ssrn.
com/abstract=701801.
MAREŠOVÁ, P., 2010: Metody hodnocení výkonnosti
klastrů se zaměřením na Czech Stone Cluster. In:
Proceedings of National and Regional Economics VIII.
Herlany. Online cit. [28. 5. 2011]. Available at:
http://www3.ekf.tuke.sk/konfera2010/zbornik/
files/prispevky/MaresovaPetra.pdf.
OHLSON, J., 1995: Earnings, book values and
dividend in security valuation. Contemporary
Accounting Research, spring 1995, 661–87.
PROOPS, J., SAFONOV, P., 2004: Modelling in Ecologi-
cal Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publish-
ing. ISBN 1-84376-222-6.
ROEGEN, N. G., 1986: The Entropy Law and the
Economic Process in Retrospect. Eastern Economics
Journal, Volume XII, No 1. ISSN 0094-5056.
SABOLOVIČ, M., 2009: Business Valuation (Oceňování
podniku). Disseration Thesis. FRRMS MENDELU.
Supervisor: prof. Iva Živělová. Brno.
SHANNON, C. E., 1948: A Mathematical Theory of
Communication. The Bell System Technical Journal,
Vol. 27, pp. 379–423, 623–656.
SUGENO, M., 1977: “Fuzzy measures and fuzzy
integrals: a survey”. In: Fuzzy Automata and Decision
Processes, Gupta, Saridis, Gaines (eds.), 89–102.
UTRIN, 2006: Iniciativy v oblasti statistiky a infor-
mací. Online cit. [5. 1. 2011]. Avaliable at: http://
www.utrin.cz/dokument.html?id=5.
WEAVER, W., SHANNON, C. E., 1963: The
Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-25-
272548-4.
ZADEH, L. A., 1965: Fuzzy Sets. Information and
Control, 8, 338–353.
ZADEH, L. A., 1973: Outline of a New Approach to
the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision
Processes. Information and Control. IEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-3, No.
1. Online cit. [5.5.2010]. Avaliable at: http://www-
bisc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Zadeh-1973.pdf.
ŽIVĚLOVÁ, I., JÁNSKÝ, J., 2007: Metodologické
přístupy k hodnocení ekonomické výkonnosti
regionu. In: Účetnictví a reporting udržitelného
rozvoje na mikroúrovni a makroúrovni. Praha:
Ministrstvo životního prostředí, 2007, s. 215–220.
ISBN 978-80-7194-970-1.